RichD Posted January 10, 2011 Author Share Posted January 10, 2011 Your right, the Police shouldn't have acted in this way. They were at fault in their procedure. It didn't warrant that action. But where you say "accused of a crime he had nothing to do with", he had something to do with it, legally so, but a valid connection never the less. I accept your point - the kid had "something to do with " the crime. He was an indirect victim of it. The main problem with this case was lazy and unprofessional policing (assuming that they could get straight to a perpetrator by means of DNA - I mean just think about how many people's DNA would legitimately be in a postbox full of letters. And it's not like the Police turned up to the kid's house to ask him a few questions, or ask him to accompany them to the station - they simply thought they had their man and went in on the offensive. Terrible conduct.) I accept that the above was an example of bad policing, but I still maintain that it's an example that wouldn't have occurred if they didn't have his DNA on file in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 This abuse has always happened and is a separate issue to the DB itself. The point is that this abuse happens (regardless of why and how) and as someone who's innocent of any crime I'd rather not let myself be in a position that could lead to such abuses against me. I accept that the above was an example of bad policing, but I still maintain that it's an example that wouldn't have occurred if they didn't have his DNA on file in the first place. Indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I accept your point - the kid had "something to do with " the crime. He was an indirect victim of it. The main problem with this case was lazy and unprofessional policing (assuming that they could get straight to a perpetrator by means of DNA - I mean just think about how many people's DNA would legitimately be in a postbox full of letters. And it's not like the Police turned up to the kid's house to ask him a few questions, or ask him to accompany them to the station - they simply thought they had their man and went in on the offensive. Terrible conduct.) I accept that the above was an example of bad policing, but I still maintain that it's an example that wouldn't have occurred if they didn't have his DNA on file in the first place. It's happened to me just on someone else's hear say. In reality they'd been imprisoned numerous times, me never, but they still took what he said as truth until I disproved it. This type of incident happens all the time. It's just how they do it. People act in the same way on here, half cocked! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichD Posted January 10, 2011 Author Share Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) It's happened to me just on someone else's hear say. In reality they'd been imprisoned numerous times, me never, but they still took what he said as truth until I disproved it. This type of incident happens all the time. It's just how they do it. People act in the same way on here, half cocked! Indeed. The way some people talk/behave on here is appalling. I get the feeling many of them would never say the same things to people's faces. Same with every internet forum, eh? I'm glad we all seem to be keeping it civil here, despite the polar disagreement... Edited January 10, 2011 by RichD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Wouldnt mass screening just help to eliminate lots of people. Where is the harm? I think that everyone should be implanted with an RFID chip at birth so that the government and the police can determine our exact location at any time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Many forms government or not include that question, virtually all include race questions. Quite a few ask for other sensitive information such as medical history and criminal records. Thing is though - are they required? The religion on the last census form wasnt required for example (and would possibly be contrary to the ECHR I think) and the rest of the sensitive stuff that seems to be asked the Govt just doesnt get from me unless it's clearly necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splodgeyAl Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I think that everyone should be implanted with an RFID chip at birth so that the government and the police can determine our exact location at any time.Why not just call such a device something like "mobile fone" and charge everyone £30 a month for carrying it around? Win all round! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I think that everyone should be implanted with an RFID chip at birth so that the government and the police can determine our exact location at any time. Its heading that way, logged, watched and databased more and more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Why not just call such a device something like "mobile fone" and charge everyone £30 a month for carrying it around? Win all round! Eat yer simcard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
espadrille Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I just couldn't believe when I read this on the BBC news site: Jo Yeates murder case: MP backs DNA testing Jo Yeates's murder was a terrible thing, but to suggest that an entire city's worth of men be screened is either misguided or just plain stupid. For the MP concerned (Kerry McCarthy) to suggest that most men wouldn't mind being asked for their DNA shows a serious detachment from reality. Almost every person I know says they'd never provide a DNA sample to the authorities unless forced. And these are decent, law-abiding people. They just know that DNA records aren't deleted when a person is found innocent, and feel that the authorities don't have the right to retain that kind of personally identifying information. Cant believe that the MP would make a statement like that without thinking it through. Surely she would have been better off discussing it with the police and getting them to look at the enormity of the situation before she decided to talk to the media. Seems a strange thing for an MP to say anyway.Its a criminal matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now